Article: The relationship of various arch forms and cortical bone thickness

Objective: Implants are being used in orthodontics as a reliable mode of anchorage. Among other factors, the cortical bone thickness plays a major role in determining the stability of these implants. The objective of this study was to study the relationship of various arch forms and the cortical bone thickness and to determine if the cortical bone thickness varies between various arch forms. This would help to determine the ideal length of an implant for a particular arch form.

Materials And Methods: A cross sectional tomograph was obtained from 30 patients. Based on arch forms the patients' tomographs were equally divided into three basic square, tapered and ovoid categories, each consisting of 10 patients. Consequently, their buccal and lingual cortical plate thicknesses were measured.

Results: The results showed that there was a statistically significant difference between the three arch forms, in which the square arch form had the greatest cortical bone thickness among the three arch forms.

Conclusion: Patients having a tapered arch form may require implants with greater length than patients having a square or an ovoid arch form. Since the availability of the cortical bone in square arch patients is greater, there is more stability for the implants in these cases; therefore, implants with a shorter length may be used in these cases.

Citing Articles

Associations among the anterior maxillary dental arch form, alveolar bone thickness, and the sagittal root position of the maxillary central incisors in relation to immediate implant placement: A cone-beam computed tomography analysis.

Somvasoontra S, Tharanon W, Serichetaphongse P, Pimkhaokham A Imaging Sci Dent. 2022; 52(2):197-207.

PMID: 35799960 PMC: 9226239. DOI: 10.5624/isd.20210248.

Buccal cortical bone thickness at miniscrew placement sites in patients with different vertical skeletal patterns.

Veli I, Uysal T, Baysal A, Karadede I J Orofac Orthop. 2014; 75(6):417-29.

PMID: 25344123 DOI: 10.1007/s00056-014-0235-7.

References

1.

Masumoto T, Hayashi I, Kawamura A, Tanaka K, Kasai K . Relationships among facial type, buccolingual molar inclination, and cortical bone thickness of the mandible. Eur J Orthod. 2001; 23(1):15-23. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/23.1.15. View

2.

Schnelle M, Beck F, Jaynes R, Huja S . A radiographic evaluation of the availability of bone for placement of miniscrews. Angle Orthod. 2005; 74(6):832-7. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2004)074<0832:AREOTA>2.0.CO;2. View

3.

Block M, Hoffman D . A new device for absolute anchorage for orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995; 107(3):251-8. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(95)70140-0. View

4.

Kim H, Yun H, Park H, Kim D, Park Y . Soft-tissue and cortical-bone thickness at orthodontic implant sites. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006; 130(2):177-82. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.12.024. View

5.

Kageyama T, Dominguez-Rodriguez G, Vigorito J, Deguchi T . A morphological study of the relationship between arch dimensions and craniofacial structures in adolescents with Class II Division 1 malocclusions and various facial types. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006; 129(3):368-75. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.12.005. View

The Relationship of Various Arch Forms and Cortical Bone Thickness